Musings and Sometimes Rants about the non-equal status of Fathers in Family Law and Parenting. Additionally periodic comparisons to the treatment of men compared to women in other areas including health care.

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

The attempts by the professionals in the divorce industry to get nanny state intervention in their professional capacities is noteworthy. These people do what they do because they chose to and they went in this direction because the money is good. They perform these services in the most personal of any human interaction, family breakdown. The assessments relate to, in most cases, severing a child's relationship with one of their biological parents.

These assessments, as has been noted in the column, are expensive and can bankrupt the family, in most cases the father. They are done because dads want to stay in the lives of their children but it is a very tall mountain they must climb. Family Court Judges, Canada's most prolific negative social engineers, give mom physical custody in a 9-1 ratio. This applies even if dad was the main care giver prior to separation and divorce. It can be defined as a form of gender apartheid.

Many of these lawyers and assessors are aligned with the Violence Against Women (VAW) industry, a billion plus dollar enterprise across the country and not without its own corruption. There are about 569 DV shelters in Canada funded by taxpayer dollars. Not one provides services to men. These centres are the heartbeat of modern 3rd wave feminist ideology focusing on women as an underclass of perpetual victims controlled by a patriarchy. This nebulous but apparently all consuming monster is male and dads are male. What enters into all the arguments with respect to dads getting physical custody is some form is DV. It is the vampire in the closet dragged out to denigrate good fathers. It is the Lifeboat Feminists main weapon and is part of the indoctrination process at these shelters even if no DV has occurred.

Many of these shelters are referral agents to lawyers and assessors/counselors. These people have a vested and pecuniary interest in maintaining good relationships with the shelters because of the income stream. These shelters all require their clients to sign non-disclosure agreements to never utter a word with respect to their stay. What deep and dark secrets are they keeping and what are these shelters afraid of. We know they harbour criminals, runaways, drug addicts, those hiding from refugee/immigration issues and indeed some women who are actually abused.

" Nick Bala, a Queen's University law professor. (editor note: a feminist sycophant)

The report suggests three options, based partly on legislation in a handful of U.S. states.

-Require that a judge approve any disciplinary complaint, ensuring that it is more than merely an attack on the assessor's conclusions.

This will add to the workload of judges who are already biased in the extreme based on their decisions noted earlier. Since when do we need another trial or session to determine whether one of the professionals acted appropriately. If the Assessor or lawyer has acted appropriately they have nothing to fear but heaven forbid they should get court protection from an already highly probable biased judge. This is absurd in the extreme.

-Require that the complaint be approved by both parents, again making it less likely the grievance will be just another appeal by the losing party.

This is ridiculously unreasonable. There will be no agreement between the parties based on the fact the decision will likely favour one of them and on a balance of probabilities (9-1)benefit mom. All this does is further the adversarial, winner take all approach and does nothing for the children caught in the middle.-Set up a vetting process within regulatory bodies that would throw out vexatious complaints before they are formally investigated.

A process like this would have to be completely transparent which is highly unlikely. They may well be making arbitrary decisions without a proper hearing to protect their own hides, as is the case with all self governing bodies, and may be leaving incompetents and Charlatans doing harm to children. The Durham Children's Aid Society (so called child protection) used the services of a bogus PhD, named Greg Carter, to perform assessments and then when found out he was a fraud defended their use of him.

His bogus assessment was used by a judge, which favoured the mom, to deprive a dad of his children. Another assessment by a qualified person had a different outcome. The corruption in the industry, including child protection, is wide spread and runs deep.MJM

Put limits on custody complaints, group urges

Assessments

Tom Blackwell, National Post Published: Monday, March 22, 2010

Canadian law must be changed to make it far more difficult for disgruntled parents to file disciplinary charges against psychologists, psychiatrists and other health professionals who do assessments in child-custody cases, says a group of leading lawyers and therapists.

The complaints submitted to professional bodies by the losing side in custody battles are turning experts off the important work, the group says in a discussion paper. The result is a "major social and legal problem," it says.

The group urges changing the rules so disciplinary bodies can only consider complaints from such parents if they have been first approved by the judge in the case or by the other, winning parent, or have been screened to weed out frivolous grievances.

"The family law justice system is seriously undermined every time a vexatious complaint is made by a parent to the college," said the paper signed by 11 psychologists, psychiatrists, lawyers and social workers. "It feels like a professional sucker punch and has no correlation to the skill, experience and savvy of the assessor."
Earlier this year, the Ontario Medical Association's board directed its staff to work with other professionals to push for changes to protect members against such complaints.

A parents-rights organization, however, says people embroiled in emotional disputes often feel the assessor is biased against one side, and need some recourse to question their professionalism.

Kris Titus of the Canadian Equal Parenting Council said she has heard from parents about psychologists or others who will spend a whole day with one parent in their home, and an hour in a "sterile" office environment with the other.

Or, in some cases, parents suspect the assessor appointed by the court is a "hired gun," inclined to reach a predetermined conclusion.

"When you're dealing with children, where every decision made is essentially going to affect someone's entire future, there has to be strict regulation of assessors," Ms. Titus said. "There are some assessors we have heard multiple complaints about."

The experts are appointed jointly in custody cases to interview, observe and sometime conduct psychological testing on family members to help determine who is best able to care for the children of divorces. The work can take months and cost the parties up to $75,000.

The lobby group is not looking to gain "immunity" for assessors from disciplinary charges, only to curb the high number of spurious complaints, said Nick Bala, a Queen's University law professor.

The report suggests three options, based partly on legislation in a handful of U.S. states.

-Require that a judge approve any disciplinary complaint, ensuring that it is more than merely an attack on the assessor's conclusions.
-Require that the complaint be approved by both parents, again making it less likely the grievance will be just another appeal by the losing party.
-Set up a vetting process within regulatory bodies that would throw out vexatious complaints before they are formally investigated

About Me

I am Politically active and right of centre on most issues with the odd exception such as legalization of "Mary Jane".
I advocate on changes to Family Law - an incredibly dysfunctional arena where parents are pitted against one another and children are the victims.
My picture will sometimes show me as a younger man simply because I like them.

Feminism On Trial Powered By Ringsurf

Counting 1 - 2 - 3

Leading causes of Injury to Women 2006

In 2006, unintentional falls were the leading cause of nonfatal injury among women of every age group, and rates generally increased with age. Women aged 65 years and older had the highest rate of injury due to unintentional falls (59.7 per 1,000 women), while slightly more than 19 per 1,000 women aged 18–34 and 35–44 years experienced fall-related injuries. Unintentional injuries sustained as motor vehicle occupants were the second leading cause of injury among 18- to 34-year-olds (18.7 per 1,000), while unintentional overexertion was the second leading cause of injury among women aged 35–44 and 45–64 years (13.7 and 9.3 per 1,000, respectively). Among women aged 65 years and older, being unintentionally struck by or against an object was the second leading cause of injury (5.7 per 1,000).

Injury related Emergency Department Visits

Unintentional and intentional injuries each represented a higher proportion of emergency department (ED) visits for men than women in 2005. Among women and men aged 18 years and older, unintentional injuries accounted for 19.9 and 27.5 percent of ED visits, respectively, while intentional injuries, or assault, represented 1.4 and 2.7 percent of visits, respectively. Among both women and men, unintentional injury accounted for a higher percentage of ED visits among those living in non-metropolitan areas, while adults living in metropolitan areas had a slightly higher percentage of ED visits due to intentional injury.